McKenna West, the surrogate who crossed state lines to Texas after the biological parents of her unborn child requested she terminate the pregnancy, has now appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. In an emergency application filed Wednesday, West seeks to temporarily halt a California court order that recognizes Omar Ahmed and Nausheen Gilkar as the legal parents of the four-week-old boy.
West gave birth to the child on August 12 in Dallas, naming him Gabriel. The biological parents, a California couple, have called him Rumi. The dispute began during pregnancy when doctors diagnosed the fetus with hypoplastic left heart syndrome, a condition where the left side of the heart is underdeveloped and cannot pump blood effectively. Ahmed and Gilkar asked West to have an abortion, but she refused, citing her moral objections.
After the diagnosis, West moved to Texas, where she sought legal custody and the authority to make medical decisions for the child. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, intervened in the case, backing West and arguing that the infant should receive necessary medical care. A Texas judge then ordered the hospital to provide life-saving treatment, appointed a guardian, and barred the child from being removed from the state.
However, on September 1, a Texas court recognized a California judgment that established Ahmed and Gilkar as the child's parents and dismissed West from the case with prejudice. According to West's filing, she is now shut out of information about the child's condition and cannot participate in decisions about his treatment.
West's attorneys argue that the California court lacked jurisdiction over the matter, and they are asking the Supreme Court to delay the enforcement of that judgment while they pursue further appeals. They also express concern that the child could be taken to California and placed in hospice care rather than receiving continued surgical intervention. The filing warns that the child could be moved as soon as September 17.
Ahmed and Gilkar have maintained they are the child's legal parents. Gilkar previously told a Texas court that the couple initially considered abortion after learning of the diagnosis but later decided to continue the pregnancy. The baby has already undergone the first of several planned surgeries, according to court documents.
The case has drawn national attention, highlighting the legal complexities of surrogacy agreements and the rights of surrogates versus biological parents. It also intersects with ongoing debates over abortion and parental rights, particularly in states like Texas, where abortion is heavily restricted. The Supreme Court's decision on whether to take up the emergency application could set a precedent for how such disputes are handled across state lines.
Legal experts note that the high court rarely intervenes in family law matters, but the urgency and constitutional questions involved may prompt a response. Meanwhile, the clock is ticking for the infant, whose medical needs remain at the center of the dispute.
